Proposed Amendment in Essex Sees More Criticism at PZC Hearing
A proposal to amend regulations governing Essex’s largest residential district again drew strong criticism at a town Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) hearing held on Sept. 5.
This was the second public hearing focusing on a proposed text amendment with the purpose to “add a new Section 61A.2(G) to permit Multiple Dwelling Projects in the Rural Residence District” that was brought forth by representatives of Mystic-based developers Greylock Properties.
A substantial audience of citizens packed the auditorium room at Essex Town Hall, even more attending the meeting virtually over Zoom. A few even had to stand behind commissioners at the front of the room.
Attorney Bill Sweeney returned to the meeting to represent Greylock Properties. Sweeney took his time to speak to respond to staunchly oppositional comments made by members of the public who attended the previous meeting concerning the proposal on Aug. 3.
He reiterated the tight restrictions the property floated by Greylock would be under relative to other properties in the Rural Residence District, the largest zoning area in Essex. He also reminded everyone that his client’s intention of constructing 12 four-unit townhouse-style condo buildings at 160 Saybrook Road did not amount to spot zoning that would specifically benefit Greylock for their project idea.
Sweeney acknowledged the contention surrounding Connecticut State Statutes 8-30g, which offers a degree of flexibility to developers that, he said, Greylock does not intend to take advantage of to form an “adversarial relationship” with Essex.
“My client…made a conscious decision to try to work with the town, work with you planning officials… develop the text amendment that’s before you tonight that would allow for multifamily developments on appropriate sites in town, for this commission could still maintain some degree of control over the development and its appearance,” said Sweeney.
He said Greylock is “willing and capable” to “work through any concerns commission or neighbors have for the proposed text amendment.”
While Sweeney acknowledged the perspectives of those who spoke in opposition, he felt that they were mistaken in thinking that the proposal signaled a “radical departure” from zoning laws. He reminded the commission that they should “respect the request” of Greylock to change zoning regulations in their interest, given changes in demographics and housing patterns over time, and that any proposed change should not be ignored, even with strong public opposition. He cited the town’s goal of creating a “diversity in housing options” that are affordable, as established in the 2015-2025 Plan of Conversation of Development, as an example for pushing forward with the proposed zoning change.
“This amendment dovetails with that strategy directly,” said Sweeney. “It’s your job to make the decision that is best for the community of Essex as a whole…That being said, we are still very sympathetic to our neighbors and residents who are concerned about the text amendment.”
Strong public opposition was brought to the PZC again at the meeting, this time in greater numbers. Opposing speakers lined one side of the auditorium to voice their concerns. Several speakers were met with applause from the audience of citizens following their comments.
Those who spoke again raised concerns over changes in traffic patterns and capacity, water septic, and the small-town character Essex were repeated as well. Mark Brustolon brought up a point made at the previous meeting on a potential snowball effect in the case of a regulation change and that a developer unfamiliar with Essex and its character should not be influencing its direction.
“There are other spaces that could be opened up for the same type of planning. That is what we don’t want. Many people moved here from a city to be in a village like ours, and you people [Greylock] want to radically change it, said Brustolon. “The word ‘radical’ is a very valid point. We don’t want to change our little town.”
Phil Nuzzo of Save Rural Essex, LLC, said that the group is not specifically against high-density, multifamily housing in Essex but that such development should not occur in the characteristic Rural Residence District in town. Agreeing members of the public suggested development take place in the Rural Multifamily district instead.
Nuzzo informed the PZC of a petition that garnered over 500 signatures in opposition to the text amendment change. It is 400 more than a similar petition accepted by the commission at the previous meeting.
Criticism also focused on the 8-30g statute. Opponents pointed to the permission they said it offers for private developers to bypass local zoning regulations in order to help towns reach 10% of their housing stock being deemed affordable. According to the Department of Housing, Essex’s current housing stock of affordable units is 3.28%.
“8-30g is something that the state put out where they could come and subvert the will of the people,” said John Gatti. “It would scare you to think about the fact that they could come in almost in an eminent domain capacity and subvert all of us as a town and this commission so they could decide when, where, and how they would like to put in affordable housing.”
After the public hearing was closed, Land Use Official Carey Duques said that the PZC would have 65 days from the day of the hearing to make a final decision to adopt or reject the text amendment. Duques specified that the next PZC meeting will strictly be a public meeting and that an attending audience “won’t be able to speak on this item going forward.”
The PZC voted to continue deliberations on the matter at its next public meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 3.